• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:56
CEST 19:56
KST 02:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2914Serral wins Maestros of the Game 243ByuL, and the Limitations of Standard Play3Team Liquid Map Contest #22: Results and Winners7Code S Season 2 (2026): RO4 and Finals Preview12
Community News
Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16)52Reynor: GSL Loss Wasn't About Preparation Format16[IPSL] Spring 2026 Grand Finals - This Weekend!5Weekly Cups (July 6 - 12): Protoss strike back12BSL Season 22 Full Overview & Conclusion8
StarCraft 2
General
Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) [D] Wireframe Casting Removed Clem: "I don't have that much hope in Blizzard" Reynor: GSL Loss Wasn't About Preparation Format Is the larve respawn broken?
Tourneys
Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) WardiTV Summer Cup 2026 GSL CK #5 Race War RSL Revival: Season 6 - Qualifiers and Main Event HomeStory Cup 29
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
New Map Maker - Looking for Advice - Love or Hate Work In Progress Melee Maps [D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 534 Burning Evacuation Mutation # 533 Die Together Mutation # 532 Nuclear Family
Brood War
General
ASL22 General Discussion NaDa’s Body Followup BW General Discussion Pros Debate: Zerg Unfairly Nerfed? (ASL S22 map) Etiquete rules in Asl?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Escore Tournament - Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [IPSL] Spring 2026 Grand Finals - This Weekend!
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers Creating a full chart of Zerg builds Relatively freeroll strategies
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile General RTS Discussion Thread Beyond All Reason Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread
Dota 2
Looking for a Dota Mentor Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Power Rank NeO.D_StephenKing vs This Guy From 1 Million Dance TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI UK Politics Mega-thread YouTube Thread
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club The HerO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 McBoner: A hockey love story Tennis[sport] Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Simple Questions Simple Answers FPS when play League Of Legend on laptop How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
Northern Ireland Global Starcraft The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Poker (part 2)
Nebuchad
The Experiences We Want and …
TrAiDoS
An Exploration of th…
waywardstrategy
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 8628 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1113

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22476 Posts
June 14 2014 15:22 GMT
#22241
On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.

Quick question:
Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo.
So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick.

Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies.
For the so called goal of stability we have three options:
-Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred
-Kill them down to the last woman and child
-Let the region stabilize itself

But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country.

The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation.
Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18866 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:26:16
June 14 2014 15:24 GMT
#22242
Here's any excellent bit from the NYRoB on why tying tenure to performance is a recipe for further disaster in K-12 education.

Last week, Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu in Los Angeles ruled that five California statutes protecting the job security of schoolteachers were unconstitutional. Likening his brief, sixteen-page ruling to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools, Judge Treu invalidated laws protecting teacher tenure and seniority. He said that the effect of these laws was to deny high-quality education to minority children by making it difficult to fire “grossly ineffective” teachers.

The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, have powerful backers and Judge Treu’s decision in their favor could have far-reaching implications. The case was filed by Students Matter, an advocacy group created by a Silicon Valley fiber-optics multi-millionaire named David Welch, and the decision has brought loud cheers from Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, as well as from various conservative groups, hedge-funders, and other advocates of tying teachers’ jobs to student test scores. Welch and his allies have said they plan to challenge tenure in other states. But was the judge right?

The case itself, which was brought on behalf of nine minority plaintiffs, was weak. No evidence was presented that any of the plaintiffs had teachers who were “grossly ineffective.” None of the teachers in question had negative evaluations. One student referred by name to a “bad teacher” who had in fact been named Pasadena’s teacher of the year. Two of the nine students were enrolled in charter schools, where teachers have neither tenure nor seniority. The Vergara sisters—after whom the case is named—attend a “pilot” school in Los Angeles where teachers may be dismissed for ineffectiveness.

The theory behind the case is that differences in test scores can be largely attributed to the quality of the teacher. Students who have “great teachers” will get high test scores year after year, which means they are more likely to go to college and earn a higher lifetime income. Even one such teacher, so goes the theory, can have this remarkable effect on students. On the other hand, said one of the expert witnesses cited by the judge, one bad teacher can cause students to lose an entire year of learning.

In fact, however, researchers overwhelmingly agree that family income and family education are the largest determinants of academic performance. Only a few months ago, the American Statistical Association said that teachers account for only between 1 percent and 14 percent of the variation among students in test scores. “The majority of opportunities for quality improvement,” said ASA, “are found in the system-level conditions”—that is, variables such as resources, class size, school leadership, the quality of the curriculum, and other factors that are mostly beyond the control of a single teacher.


Making Schools Poor
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5225 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:36:08
June 14 2014 15:27 GMT
#22243
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.


To say this is Obama's problem is silly. In fact, that line of thinking is why politics is screwed up in America, it is shameful. We are all in this together, and this is the world's problem, created in parts by our good friend, GW and Imperialism dating back hundreds of years.

Republicans want military action now in Iraq to protect oil interests. Dollar bills are involved. Hopefully we are smart enough to value our lives over our pockets. Iraq doesn't want democracy and the only reason it lasted so long is because US troops in the country fought to defend their democracy.

People self determine their government, and with their military fleeing, Iraqis obviously aren't deeply committed to democracy; they aren't willing to die for it. And that is the problem, the misguided attempt to install democracy in a country that doesn't want it and isn't willing to fight to defend it, means it will fall apart.

And you know when people are ready for democracy because they will be willing to spill their blood against an oppressive government fighting for it (like in the American Revolution!). That is when the US should step in. But there was no rebellion in Iraq. And historically, dictatorships do a great job of holding countries together, while democracies highlight differences between people as voting blocs develop, and can rip them apart. Iraq can be a single dictatorship, but it is three different democracies.

I wrote papers about how Iraq was going to fall apart in high school 10 years when we first invaded. Very sad for the Iraqi people, but not at all surprising.
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11584 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 15:39:04
June 14 2014 15:37 GMT
#22244
edit
Oh geez. I guess I didn't hit refresh from yesterday. This comment will seem really out of left-field, but had to do with the polarization and two party system conversation.

I would also throw in legal gerrymandering as another cause for growing polarization in the US. If you can't clean sweep the bums out of office (like we did with the Mulroney-Campbell Conservatives or the Fudget-Budget NDP), then I think frustration will grow with the opposing party which you can never properly punish. And frustration with any main politician in general, because not much changes because the same guys keep getting voted in. Furthermore, without a true contest from other side of the spectrum because voter groups have been divided up, your greatest threat is ideological purity rather than broad consensus.
Moderator5000 of our finest Taliban warriors have been released! Rise up my brothers. Mashalla! al-Donald ibn-Frederick al-Masih allows it.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
June 14 2014 15:48 GMT
#22245
On June 15 2014 00:22 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:
On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.

But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...

He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous...

This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble.

I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.

Quick question:
Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo.
So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick.

Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies.
For the so called goal of stability we have three options:
-Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred
-Kill them down to the last woman and child
-Let the region stabilize itself

But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country.

The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation.
Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again.

I wouldn't dream of it. We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. We gave them plenty of reasons to want us dead in the perfect environment to breed retaliatory terrorism. Then we did it again in 2003, only on a much larger scale. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
June 14 2014 16:53 GMT
#22246
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22476 Posts
June 14 2014 16:56 GMT
#22247
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States24143 Posts
June 14 2014 17:01 GMT
#22248
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?


Yes if you compared the jobs at each time it's undeniable that the jobs are shittier. They expect you to work harder and be more productive than 10 years ago for less money.

One of several reasons the DOW is at record highs with corporate profits yet wages are stagnant, and people need 2-3 jobs just to stay afloat.

Rising tide my ass.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 17:42:31
June 14 2014 17:40 GMT
#22249
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
June 14 2014 17:41 GMT
#22250
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:

[image loading]
Source

It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:

[image loading]
Source

Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:

How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts

Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?

I'm not sure about that. Manufacturing and construction have done really poorly and those industries aren't heavy on high education jobs.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:11:10
June 14 2014 18:10 GMT
#22251
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

Show nested quote +
By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:21:44
June 14 2014 18:17 GMT
#22252
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

Actually you have been echoing radical propaganda by claiming that 9/11 was a result of American politics in the middle-east.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:40:42
June 14 2014 18:29 GMT
#22253
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.

While I agree that Islam is being used as the excuse for imperial expansion, I do not believe that our significant intervention and continued presence in the region is unrelated to our being targeted by extremists in the region.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-06-14 18:45:40
June 14 2014 18:39 GMT
#22254
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
June 14 2014 18:55 GMT
#22255
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 14 2014 21:44 GMT
#22256
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.
Adreme
Profile Joined June 2011
United States5574 Posts
June 14 2014 22:08 GMT
#22257
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.
Livelovedie
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States492 Posts
June 14 2014 22:10 GMT
#22258
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.


I don't think you can really disconnect the two. Would there be ethnic tensions without the west? Probably, but it didn't help that we drew shitty borders. How much fighting would have occurred if those borders were drawn with ethnic groups, you can't say.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
June 14 2014 22:13 GMT
#22259
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.

Interesting. How do you know?
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands22476 Posts
June 14 2014 22:15 GMT
#22260
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.


when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.

the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?

the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?

saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.

osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?

US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.

By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.


nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."

or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.

Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.


I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)

I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm.
The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.


There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.

The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.

And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure.

I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.

You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.

The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?

I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.


I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.

Oo they have been massacring themselves in Iraq since the moment Saddam fell. You can't just 'reach out' when one side is determined to remove the other from existence.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Prev 1 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV Invitational
16:00
Replay Cast for D/A/CH
TaKeTV 481
IPSL
16:00
3rd Place
Dragon vs Hawk
Airneanach69
LiquipediaDiscussion
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL TeamLeaguePlayoffs STvsASH
Freeedom29
Liquipedia
Epic.LAN
13:00
Epic.LAN 48 Playoff Stage
epiclan76
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Lowko661
CosmosSc2 74
RushiSC 45
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 3830
Mini 432
ggaemo 177
BeSt 162
Sharp 142
Rock 23
Hm[arnc] 16
Yoon 13
ajuk12(nOOB) 12
HiyA 9
Dota 2
qojqva1502
Dendi62
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
fl0m1773
ScreaM1255
kRYSTAL_64
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox716
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu267
MindelVK28
Other Games
Grubby3466
Liquid`RaSZi1062
Beastyqt579
byalli531
C9.Mang0308
DeMusliM262
XaKoH 124
Livibee86
KnowMe69
Chillindude19
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2350
BasetradeTV226
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• printf 65
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 18
• 80smullet 17
• Pr0nogo 4
• FirePhoenix1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis1834
• TFBlade1002
Other Games
• imaqtpie791
• Shiphtur379
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
15h 5m
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
16h 5m
OSC
19h 5m
IPSL
22h 5m
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
1d 17h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 22h
OSC
2 days
PiGosaur Cup
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
CrankTV Team League
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Escore Tournament S3: W3
HSC XXIX
Eternal Conflict S2 E2

Ongoing

IPSL Spring 2026
Acropolis #4
YSL S3
CSL 2026 Summer (S21)
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
RSL Revival: Season 6
CranK Gathers Season 4: BW vs SC2 Team League
SCTL 2026 Spring
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S3: W4
ASL S22 SEASON OPEN Day 2
Escore Tournament S3: W5
CSLAN 4
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
HSC XXX
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
Light Tournament 2026
Eternal Conflict S2 Finale
Eternal Conflict S2 E3
Logitech G Connect 2026
StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #5
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.